posted at 7:14 pm on January 31, 2012 by Allahpundit

Drudge says the exit polls show Romney by 14 so we should get a call promptly at 8 p.m. ET. You’re watching for the final margin and for Newt’s speech afterward. If Mitt makes it to 50 percent in a closed primary he’s got a dynamite talking point tomorrow; if Gingrich holds him to a single-digit spread, then … “moral victory” I guess? (Newt assured ABC this morning that “I’m not going to lose big in Florida.”) Romney’s speech should be the standard “you can tell I’m conservative because I love America super lots” message but Newt’s could go different ways. Gracious loser? Big-picture “vision”? Pep talk to his supporters to battle on towards the convention? Or something bitter about how Romney hates religious liberty and Holocaust survivors? Maybe it’ll be all four, with Good Newt and Bad Newt battling for his soul before our very eyes.

Two in three Florida primary voters say the presidential debates were an important factor in their vote, according to early CBS News exit polls. That’s a positive sign for Mitt Romney, who was widely seen as besting rival Newt Gingrich in the two Sunshine State debates over the past week…

Electability was what Florida Republican voters were seeking in a candidate: 45 percent said the most important candidate quality is that they could defeat President Obama. That was followed by having the right experience (20 percent), having strong character (17 percent) and being a true conservative (13 percent)…

A majority of Florida Republican voters – 57 percent — were happy with the candidates on the ballot. But in a potentially troubling sign for Republicans in this swing state, 39 percent said they were not satisfied.

More from our Greenroomer Karl, who culled Fox News’s exit poll data from Twitter: “Romney winning 58% of those who say beating Obama is biggest priority. Romney winning seniors by 15% over Newt. Romney is last among those who say electing a ‘true conservative’ is most important (shocka). Romney winning Hispanics by 27%. Gingrich only leading Romney among evangelicals by 4%.” Seniors used to be Newt’s bread and butter; hard to imagine anyone staying competitive in Florida when you’re in that deep a hole with that demographic. One other fun fact via the NYT:

Negative ads were so prevalent in the final week before the Florida primary that they accounted for 92 percent of all campaign commercials that ran.

And the most heavily broadcast commercial this past weekend was not one featuring Mr. Romney or Mr. Gingrich but Tom Brokaw, the former NBC News anchor whose image the Romney campaign co-opted for an ad that used a 25-second clip from an old newscast on Mr. Gingrich’s political troubles.

A consolation prize for Santorum fans tonight: According to PPP, he leads Romney by 11 points in next week’s nonbinding primary in Missouri and fares better head to head against Romney in Ohio than Gingrich does. His favorable ratings are also vastly higher than Mitt’s and Newt’s in both states. If Gingrich dropped out soon, Santorum would stand a real chance of consolidating the Not Romney vote and winning the nomination. But watch the clip below; Newt’s promising to battle on for another six to eight months if need be, and there’s every reason to believe he’ll do it. You know who that benefits?

Here’s the Google Florida results map, or of course you could follow along in the sidebar with the handy Townhall election widget. Lots of updates coming, especially once we get the full exit polls, so stand by. For what it’s worth, I’ve now settled on a candidate to support in the race. He isn’t perfect — who is? — but he’s more human than Romney and less destructive than Newt. Meet the solution to our problems.

Update: Let’s get the ball rolling tonight with Rick Tyler of Newt’s Super PAC wondering whether a “birth defect” might be the cause of Romney’s lying.

Update: Most polls in Florida closed at 7 p.m. but the panhandle is open until eight. Even so, as of 7:15 ET, results are already being reported. As I write this Romney has nearly 100,000 votes in the bank and is above 50 percent. Stay tuned.

Update: Romney and his PAC spent $15 million on ads in Florida. Total number of positive ads he ran in the state: One. It ran 15 times. And it wasn’t even in English.

Update: Zeke Miller of BuzzFeed wonders whether and when Newt will follow Hillary’s path from 2008 in rallying behind the nominee in hopes of a cabinet position. My guess, given Gingrich’s temperament: Never. In fact, given how deep the bitterness runs, Newt might take this as his reward:

In a Washington Post/ABC News poll last week, 49 percent of the respondents nationwide held an unfavorable view of Mr. Romney, while only 31 percent had a favorable one. That is a reversal from last September, when more people held a favorable view of Mr. Romney than an unfavorable one.

Independents, in particular, now have a less favorable opinion of Mr. Romney, with favorable opinions dropping from a high in the mid-40s in late November to a low of 23 percent last week, according to the Post/ABC News poll.

Update: Just across the wires, Romney’s fundraising haul was as impressive as you’d expect last quarter: $24 million, up from $14 million in the third quarter and more than double Newt’s take of $10 million. Gingrich may want to run for another six or eight months but right now there’s only one guy in the field who can afford to do that in a meaningful way.

Update: Promptly at 8 p.m., everyone calls Florida for Romney. Now we wait for the margin and to see which Newt we get during the concession speech.

Update: Full exit polls from CNN right here. Back in a few minutes with highlights.

Update: The story of the exit polls is simple: Romney beat Gingrich across the board, in virtually every single demographic except the utmost conservative (“strong” tea party supporters, those who say abortion should always be illegal, etc.). A sample of his margins of victory: Women by 22, Latinos by 23, seniors by 17, married women by 23 (Marianne’s revenge?), tea-party supporters by two, Catholics by 26 (likely a byproduct of Romney’s advantage among Latinos), those who said the economy is the most important issue by 20, and even those who say they’re falling behind economically by a single point. As I write this, with two thirds of all precincts reporting, he’s at 46.9 percent. He probably won’t get to 50, but he may very well top the combined total of Gingrich and Santorum, which stands right now at 44.8 percent.

Update:Chris Cillizza notes that not only was the Florida electorate more Republican than that of the previous three states (thanks to the closed primary), it was also more conservative than it was four years ago when McCain won. Expect to see Team Mitt pointing that out early and often tomorrow as proof of his appeal to the right. Meanwhile, John Ellis wonders if the media’s interest in Newt is about to evaporate:

The big dogs, of course, will keep at it. Dan Balz of The Washington Post and John Heilemann of New York Magazine won’t be touched. But everyone who isn’t a brand name political reporter is back on the leash. The army is already starting to demobilize as you read this. It just doesn’t know it yet.

This is how it ends for Newt Gingrich. On the day after the South Carolina primary, he had two busloads of reporters, bloggers and electronic media types following his every word. Tomorrow, he won’t need two buses. He’ll be lucky if the seats are filled on one.

Presidential candidates survive on the oxygen of media coverage. It’s what keeps them going, enables them to keep raising money. Once the coverage is withdrawn, it’s only a matter of time before their candidacies expire. Out of sight, out of mind, out of money.

After tonight, all but one of the GOP presidential candidates will start being taken off life support. By the time we get to Super Tuesday in early March, you probably won’t even remember Rick Santorum’s name.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

How much roe do they generally give folks before banning them? Is it one strike, and you’re out, or do you have to work at it to get banned?

ghostwriter on January 31, 2012 at 11:30 PM

They generally give people a great deal of latitude, but if someone says something so patently offensive or so offensively moronic that it actually makes HotAir look bad, it can be instantaneous. I think that usually it happens when Ed or Allah get multiple email complaints and then come and investigate.

am worried that Romney winning tonight weakens the Supreme court case for throwing out Obamacare. Will the Justices not only look at the law but at public sentiment – that either way one votes in Nov that the person they are voting for is either the architect of Romneycare or the driver of Obamacare and go along with public sentiment and rule that it is constitutional?

That is what I think Florida just threw away. Undoing Obamacare.

PS:Not that I am a Gingrich or Santorum fan, for I was hoping others would run.

journeyintothewhirlwind on January 31, 2012 at 11:32 PM

I’m sorry, but I think that this is a really flimsy theory. Repealing Obamacare was always a longshot. However, I don’t see why the Florida primary, of all things would have a bearing on the Obamacare case. Several things will play a role in the SCOTUS’s ruling:
-the law
-precedent
-the political leanings of the justices;
-the unpopularity of Obamacare

Will the Justices not only look at the law but at public sentiment – that either way one votes in Nov that the person they are voting for is either the architect of Romneycare or the driver of Obamacare and go along with public sentiment and rule that it is constitutional?

journeyintothewhirlwind on January 31, 2012 at 11:32 PM

My question is this: if SCOTUS upholds ObamaCare, how does Romney justify repeal of ObamaCare? His argument has always relied on a constitutionality/states rights/federalism argument. If SCOTUS says that his argument against ObamaCare is invalid … does he still repeal it? He has been vigorous in his defense of the mandate, so we know that that isn’t his problem with it.

(For the sake of this question, I’m assuming that Romney isn’t lying when he says that he will repeal ObamaCare – an assumption that I don’t believe is accurate.)

I am worried that Romney winning tonight weakens the Supreme court case for throwing out Obamacare. Will the Justices not only look at the law but at public sentiment – that either way one votes in Nov that the person they are voting for is either the architect of Romneycare or the driver of Obamacare and go along with public sentiment and rule that it is constitutional?

That is what I think Florida just threw away. Undoing Obamacare.

PS:Not that I am a Gingrich or Santorum fan, for I was hoping others would run.

journeyintothewhirlwind on January 31, 2012 at 11:32 PM

If they go along with public sentiment, they’ll surely rule it unconstitutional. They’ll just look at the law though.

And in which ways is Romneycare relevant for the case against the federal mandate?

I am worried that Romney winning tonight weakens the Supreme court case for throwing out Obamacare. Will the Justices not only look at the law but at public sentiment – that either way one votes in Nov that the person they are voting for is either the architect of Romneycare or the driver of Obamacare and go along with public sentiment and rule that it is constitutional?

That is what I think Florida just threw away. Undoing Obamacare.

PS:Not that I am a Gingrich or Santorum fan, for I was hoping others would run.

journeyintothewhirlwind on January 31, 2012 at 11:32 PM

Being a touch melodramatic there, aren’t we?

None of the four solid conservative justices should have their view of the Constitution shaped by any one election result; if Antonin Scalia is so easily persuaded then I have grossly overestimated the man. As for Justice Kennedy, if you think outside events influence him that much then I would bet he’s still not too pleased him Obama insulting his opinion in the Citizens United case in which Kennedy wrote for the majority.

My question is this: if SCOTUS upholds ObamaCare, how does Romney justify repeal of ObamaCare? His argument has always relied on a constitutionality/states rights/federalism argument. If SCOTUS says that his argument against ObamaCare is invalid … does he still repeal it? He has been vigorous in his defense of the mandate, so we know that that isn’t his problem with it.

(For the sake of this question, I’m assuming that Romney isn’t lying when he says that he will repeal ObamaCare – an assumption that I don’t believe is accurate.)

besser tot als rot on January 31, 2012 at 11:37 PM

Public sentiment. Romney says over and over again he wants to repeal Obamacare. If the public votes him in and the polls on Obamacare stay bad (and they should) then he can claim a mandate to repeal it.

Public sentiment. Romney says over and over again he wants to repeal Obamacare. If the public votes him in and the polls on Obamacare stay bad (and they should) then he can claim a mandate to repeal it.

alchemist19 on January 31, 2012 at 11:40 PM

But his entire justification for repealing it will be void. He clearly believes that the state is the answer to the health care problem, so he isn’t opposed to the mandate as a matter of policy or ideology. I don’t think he plans to repeal it one way or the other, and I think that SCOTUS upholding the law will justify to him his ultimate decision not to push for repeal.

So, trade my 2010 Dodge 1500 pickup that I also use for work outside of my main job…..for a Prius. Nonsensical. I can’t afford to own, register, pay taxes, maintain and license two vehicles for one. A Prius can’t pull a trailer or haul a load in the bed or handle any weight.

My daily commute would have gone from 28 miles per day to 64….for another $10k a year. I would have to buy an additional vehicle for mileage only while keeping my original for versatility. I can afford one vehicle per year. One vehicle that can do as much possible.

Four dollar gas is not unheard of, but it’s not comfortable either. It’s a economic kick in the pants still. And it’s a serious harm to economic recovery.

“Buy a Prius” is not the answer for the average American or me either.

JoeinTX on January 31, 2012 at 11:19 PM

Sure it is. 90%+ of SUVs are never taken off road. The vast majority of people who own SUVs could trade them in tomorrow for a sensible sedan and they would hardly know the difference.

Romney claims that he will have a lot to do with the repeal of ObamaCare. Unless you are speaking solely of the SCOTUS decision – if you are, I agree.

besser tot als rot on January 31, 2012 at 11:40 PM

I was speaking only of the SCOTUS decision. The big question in my mind is how agressive will Romney be in pursuing repeal? If he doesn’t have a ready-made majority favoring repeal, will he assemble one, or will he table the subject in favor of other items on the agenda? I think that repealing Obamacare will be the linchpin in getting the economy moving again, but the liberals are going to howl if the Repubs repeal it.

once again, why do you care anyways? from now on it should be game over for you, you said in no ambiguous terms you wouldn’t vote for Romney in the generals under any circumstances, so why waxing poetic about the future of GOP, who wins, who loses, how we will be sorry etc…let us be sorry, then… why do you care and what’s it to you?….

jimver on January 31, 2012 at 10:49 PM

I want Romney to lose. That’s the only hope for the GOP and the country. That aside, I can still have an opinion. Or is opinion on the GOP and Romney only reserved for people who vote for Romney? Sheesh.

But his entire justification for repealing it will be void. He clearly believes that the state is the answer to the health care problem, so he isn’t opposed to the mandate as a matter of policy or ideology. I don’t think he plans to repeal it one way or the other, and I think that SCOTUS upholding the law will justify to him his ultimate decision not to push for repeal.

besser tot als rot on January 31, 2012 at 11:42 PM

The fact the individual mandate is unconstitutional is not the entire justification for repealing Obamacare. It’s enough of a reason on its own but it isn’t the only reason.

And in which ways is Romneycare relevant for the case against the federal mandate?

joana on January 31, 2012 at 11:38 PM

It’s proof tat the States can/will take up the issue if left to their own devices. It also makes it clear that at least one State has asserted jurisdiction over the issue, and may have the right of first refusal.

Yeah, politics is nasty. But at the end of the day, do you want Lord Barry to be the one who selects the next 2-3 SCOTUS nominees? I would have preferred a bona fide Tea Partier with impeccable conservative credentials. But meanwhile, back on Earth. We need to get Obama OUT of there and as many Republicans into the Congress as possible — as well as in the myriad state and local offices.

Is this process of taking back the country supposed to be easy?

minnesoter on January 31, 2012 at 11:06 PM

80% of judges Romney appointed were liberal Democrats. This is the point I am trying to make until I am blue in the face. There is no difference between Obama and Romney. Look at his record as governor. He is Obama in every way from the mandate to his gun policy to his stance on abortion to his environmental excesses. The only area I can think of where there is the slightest difference is gay marriage which is an issue I don’t give crap about personally.

Where it counts – health care, taxes, spending – Romney is indistinguishable from Obama based on his record as governor.

If he doesn’t have a ready-made majority favoring repeal, will he assemble one, or will he table the subject in favor of other items on the agenda? I think that repealing Obamacare will be the linchpin in getting the economy moving again, but the liberals are going to howl if the Repubs repeal it.

ghostwriter on January 31, 2012 at 11:44 PM

That is my major concern with him (there are many others, but this is the biggest). I already find his reasoning for wanting to repeal ObamaCare flimsy. Most people hate the mandate and the government’s power grab, but not him. I’ve never seen him more lively than in his latest defense of the mandate. If SCOTUS upholds ObamaCare, I fear that he will grow even more tepid. And I don’t think that the Senate will pass repeal without the president pushing for it. McConnell is worse than useless.

Yeah, but he had to get his nominations approved by a body controlled by the Democrats. The equivalent at the federal level might be something like the US Senate. So, totally different situation. I’m sure we can count on Romney to nominate Thomas clones when the Democrats have no input on his nominees.

80% of judges Romney appointed were liberal Democrats. This is the point I am trying to make until I am blue in the face. There is no difference between Obama and Romney. Look at his record as governor. He is Obama in every way from the mandate to his gun policy to his stance on abortion to his environmental excesses. The only area I can think of where there is the slightest difference is gay marriage which is an issue I don’t give crap about personally.

Where it counts – health care, taxes, spending – Romney is indistinguishable from Obama based on his record as governor.

angryed on January 31, 2012 at 11:48 PM

This is BS. He is a hell of a lot better than Obama. Romney was governor in Massachusetts, with a liberal Democrat legislature. How was he supposed to appoint conservatives? How was he supposed to push conservative legislation? Did he have public support to do so?

He’s already said a bazillion times that he’s pro-life, and indicated his support for gun rights. At what point will you take yes for an answer?

..no sarc tag so I’m taking you at your word. We are very grateful to have you. There are a lot of us who will NOT gloat over what might be seen by some as a capitulation. Let me welcome you to the fight and let’s focus on throwing that metro-sexual incompetent out of our house in November.

Even assuming 2 impossible things happen; Willard wins and he wants to repeal it, still not happening. Even though Reid used reconciliation to pass it, McConnell will – in the interest of bipartisanship – refuse to repeal it unless there are 60 votes.

The fact the individual mandate is unconstitutional is not the entire justification for repealing Obamacare. It’s enough of a reason on its own but it isn’t the only reason.

alchemist19 on January 31, 2012 at 11:46 PM

Isn’t Romney’s stated problem with ObamaCare that it violates federalism (i.e., commerce clause doesn’t apply, so 10th amendment applies)? If SCOTUS says that isn’t right, what is his justification for repealing it? And if he doesn’t have one, why would he do it?

.no sarc tag so I’m taking you at your word. We are very grateful to have you. There are a lot of us who will NOT gloat over what might be seen by some as a capitulation. Let me welcome you to the fight and let’s focus on throwing that metro-sexual incompetent out of our house in November.

Persevere.

The War Planner on January 31, 2012 at 11:57 PM

If you have read Puchenko’s posts for some time you’d know he doesn’t do sarc tags.

Isn’t Romney’s stated problem with ObamaCare that it violates federalism (i.e., commerce clause doesn’t apply, so 10th amendment applies)? If SCOTUS says that isn’t right, what is his justification for repealing it? And if he doesn’t have one, why would he do it?

Even assuming 2 impossible things happen; Willard wins and he wants to repeal it, still not happening. Even though Reid used reconciliation to pass it, McConnell will – in the interest of bipartisanship – refuse to repeal it unless there are 60 votes.

80% of judges Romney appointed were liberal Democrats. This is the point I am trying to make until I am blue in the face. There is no difference between Obama and Romney. Look at his record as governor. He is Obama in every way from the mandate to his gun policy to his stance on abortion to his environmental excesses. The only area I can think of where there is the slightest difference is gay marriage which is an issue I don’t give crap about personally.

Where it counts – health care, taxes, spending – Romney is indistinguishable from Obama based on his record as governor.

angryed on January 31, 2012 at 11:48 PM

One difference between Mitt and Barry is one will keep Eric Holder as attorney general and one won’t. That’s one thing right there.

As to that “80% of judges were liberal Democrats,” I dug into that and what I uncovered doesn’t match up with what you claim. Romney appointed 9 Republicans, 13 independents and 14 Democrats by means of a system he set up where candidates were evaluated blindly without knowledge of race, sex or political ideology. It was what he had to do in the face of the nine-member committee composed of eight Democrats and one Republican who had to sign off on his nominees. I would have liked to see 36 Republicans but given what he was up against he did the best he could. Besides, most of his appointments were for lower criminal courts where a judge’s ideology isn’t a big thing. There were no vacancies on the Massachusetts Supreme Court during his time in office.

He’s already said a bazillion times that he’s pro-life, and indicated his support for gun rights. At what point will you take yes for an answer?

ghostwriter on January 31, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Here’s what he did:

Signed anti-gun legislation as governor of MA that banned those eeeeeeevil assault weapons.

I’m pro-choice as well so I don’t really care about abortion to be honest. But I do care that he has flippity flopped about abortion every few years. Speaks to the fact you can’t trust anything he says.

Signed anti-gun legislation as governor of MA that banned those eeeeeeevil assault weapons.

I’m pro-choice as well so I don’t really care about abortion to be honest. But I do care that he has flippity flopped about abortion every few years. Speaks to the fact you can’t trust anything he says.

angryed on February 1, 2012 at 12:02 AM

He changed once on abortion that I’m aware of. This isn’t the same as “flippity-flopping every few years. People are entitled to a change of heart.

Anyway, you just seem to want to bitch and moan about stuff, and it’s getting old fast.

That’s your reason for wanting it repealed. And mine. But not Romney’s. He thinks the mandate, the exchanges, the exclusion of preexisting conditions, etc. work.

besser tot als rot on February 1, 2012 at 12:03 AM

Romney looks at health care and thinks how can govt solve the problem? He doesn’t look at hit and think, how can govt help the free market solve the problem? And the same goes for every other issue out there.

This is BS. He is a hell of a lot better than Obama. Romney was governor in Massachusetts, with a liberal Democrat legislature. How was he supposed to appoint conservatives? How was he supposed to push conservative legislation? Did he have public support to do so?

He’s already said a bazillion times that he’s pro-life, and indicated his support for gun rights. At what point will you take yes for an answer?

ghostwriter on January 31, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Here’s the thing. Politicians lie. Pretty much all of them. What doesn’t lie? Their record. In 2008, everyone believed Obama’s words about how he was going to bring everyone together and compromise to solve all of the big problems. What did he do? He did what his record said he would do. He pushed the most leftist agenda of any president in my lifetime. Believing otherwise is just wishcasting. Could you be right? Sure. But I’m not optimistic.

Signed anti-gun legislation as governor of MA that banned those eeeeeeevil assault weapons.

I’m pro-choice as well so I don’t really care about abortion to be honest. But I do care that he has flippity flopped about abortion every few years. Speaks to the fact you can’t trust anything he says.

angryed on February 1, 2012 at 12:02 AM

Slightly off-topic but do you really think a President Romney would do anything in regards to gun control? Obama is so scared of the issue they needed to cook up Fast and Furious just to try to get the public in the mood for it. After Heller and McDonald that whole issue has moved to a court battle anyway. Even if Romney is personally in favor of gun control (and he might be but I neither know nor really care) there is still no way at all he do anything to abridge the Second Amendment.

This is BS. He is a hell of a lot better than Obama. Romney was governor in Massachusetts, with a liberal Democrat legislature. How was he supposed to appoint conservatives? How was he supposed to push conservative legislation? Did he have public support to do so?

ghostwriter on January 31, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Reagan had a Democrat Congress for his entire 8 years and got a ton of conservative things done. It can be done if the right man is there.

Slightly off-topic but do you really think a President Romney would do anything in regards to gun control?

alchemist19 on February 1, 2012 at 12:09 AM

Yeah I think he’d do something “sensible” and bipartisan like banning certain types of handguns or ammo. That’s his MO…do something to please the squish but not offensive enough to get either side too upset.

I can also see more under the covers stuff like higher taxes on ammo, more stringent laws for gun manufacturers, make it easier to sue gun manufacturers, stuff like that.

What’s this crud with Drudge and the big LANDSLIDE headline splashed across the page? Since when is 46% a landslide? And in a primary?

C’mon–LBJ 1964, Nixon 1972, Reagan 1984 were more like landslides. Yes, actual presidential elections, but all with the victor getting around 60% of the popular vote and 90% or more of the electoral votes.

Sorry, 46% isn’t even half and means that 54% didn’t vote for the presumptive landslider, so hardly a landslide. This is where the media loses me. Inaccurate assumptions. Sensationalist headlines. Exaggeration. What a buncha crud. And so disappointing.

That’s your reason for wanting it repealed. And mine. But not Romney’s. He thinks the mandate, the exchanges, the exclusion of preexisting conditions, etc. work.

besser tot als rot on February 1, 2012 at 12:03 AM

He’s not stupid. Despite what he says, Romney must see that Romneycare isn’t working, and probably has an idea of how he could fix it. Moreoveer, Romney is on record as saying that he doesn’t think that mandates/Romneycare would be appropriate for the US. As I understand how Romneycare was passed, most of it was shoved down his throat by the legislature. Romney didn’t have a Paul Ryan and a Republican House with him in Boston to help him fight the fight.

Yes, time is running short. If they can’t repeal it, they need to gut it, and get rid of the review panel, at a minimum.

ghostwriter on February 1, 2012 at 12:08 AM

Dude…none of it is going away. Nada. Zilch. Zip. And you can thank Romney for it all. Had he not done Romneycare, Obama woudln’t have done Obamacare. Don’t take my word for it. Listen to the guy who helped Obama and Romney do their thing…

An exasperated former Mitt Romney adviser is simply fed up that his old boss keeps denying that Romneycare and Obamacare are twins.

“Basically, they’re the same f—ing bill,” Jonathan Gruber, a healthcare economist and MIT professor who helped shape Romney’s healthcare plan, told Capital New York this week.
I’m frustrated that the future of the American health care system rests in the hands of one or two of these unelected people who might make the decision based on political grounds,” he said. “It’s frustrating.”

Gruber, who also helped President Obama with his “Affordable Care Act,” gave the GOP presidential hopeful some credit for not completely disowning the healthcare plan, but said Romney was being disingenuous in trying to differentiate between his and President Obama’s bill.

“He just can’t have his cake and eat it too. Basically, you know it’s the same bill. He can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he’s just lying,” said Gruber..

Romney was the most conservative of the four and by far. Doesn’t this tell you anything? Just look at the amount of legislation he vetoed (and if you weren’t an Obama supporter, so inherently dishonest, you wouldn’t blame him for legislation he vetoed and was later overridden by the legislature).

Yeah I think he’d do something “sensible” and bipartisan like banning certain types of handguns or ammo. That’s his MO…do something to please the squish but not offensive enough to get either side too upset.

I can also see more under the covers stuff like higher taxes on ammo, more stringent laws for gun manufacturers, make it easier to sue gun manufacturers, stuff like that.

angryed on February 1, 2012 at 12:12 AM

Even if he wanted to there is no appetite in Congress for it. Go back and look how many people on both sides of the aisle signed the legal brief in support of Heller when that case was before the Supreme Court and compare it to the number who signed the brief supporting DC. It’s a total political loser for him to do it because he ticks off both his base and Washington’s biggest lobby.

Look, full disclosure, I’m an NRA Life Member, gun owner’s rights in an issue I’m passionate about and I have no fear of Mitt Romney. Do his views match up with mine on the issue? Highly doubtful. But as president he gains nothing and loses a lot by even hinting at doing anything I would oppose on that issue. And he’s bound to be better than Obama.

As I understand how Romneycare was passed, most of it was shoved down his throat by the legislature. Romney didn’t have a Paul Ryan and a Republican House with him in Boston to help him fight the fight.

ghostwriter on February 1, 2012 at 12:15 AM

That’s not true. He vetoed some portions of it that the legislature over rode. But he was all for the main part of the bill, ie the mandate. Jon Gruber, who I quoted above was hired by Romney – not the legislature – to craft the legislature. He was then hired by Obama to do the same nationally.

Romney was the most conservative of the four and by far. Doesn’t this tell you anything? Just look at the amount of legislation he vetoed (and if you weren’t an Obama supporter, so inherently dishonest, you wouldn’t blame him for legislation he vetoed and was later overridden by the legislature).

joana on February 1, 2012 at 12:18 AM

Was he the most conservative? Maybe. Does that mean that he was to the right of center? No. Romney did not govern as a conservative by anyone’s definition of conservative. So, on what basis do you have any belief that he will now govern as a conservative? Because MA is liberal? That doesn’t even make any sense. You are mistaking a justification for why he didn’t govern more conservatively for evidence that he is conservative. You are rationalizing rather than proving.

Look, full disclosure, I’m an NRA Life Member, gun owner’s rights in an issue I’m passionate about and I have no fear of Mitt Romney. Do his views match up with mine on the issue? Highly doubtful. But as president he gains nothing and loses a lot by even hinting at doing anything I would oppose on that issue. And he’s bound to be better than Obama.

alchemist19 on February 1, 2012 at 12:20 AM

I used to be an NRA member until they thought about endorsing Harry Reid. I cancelled my membership the day I heard about it. I know they ended up not doing it. But even for a second considering it was enough for me.

Look I’m not saying Romney will find the constitution and use white out to erase the 2nd Ammendment. I’m just saying based on his record as governor, I don’t get a warm and fuzzy from him on the issue.

Ed, also OT. Sometimes your posts just drive me up a wall. I mean I see absolute red and start frothing at the mouth. But it is NOT because of your opinions or the research you do or the fact that you’re not for my candidate, etc. It is because you’re continually, depressingly, and gratingly negative at times.

Tonight, not so much.

I just wanted to tell you that if you could at least temper your negativity with some humor and maybe a be a little more upbeat then I..

..well, that’s sort of arrogant, I guess. But I think you understand what I am trying to say. I really, really respect what you post. Just wish it didn’t depress me so much to read it. If it’s a matter of something to lighten the mood, I can send you a case of Lismores to help.

This quote really takes the cake. Now, I know that you’re full of crap–that’s the most bassackwards piece of logic that I’ve ever seen.

Good night.

ghostwriter on February 1, 2012 at 12:23 AM

Not sure that I agree with the statement, but given how ObamaCare was passed, it seems to me that such factors may have gotten ObamaCare across the finish line. You may recall that Obama pointed repeatedly to RomneyCare in promoting ObamaCare. That was one of his arguments for it. If he didn’t think that it was a persuasive on some level, he wouldn’t have talked about it so much.

I get what you’re saying. I feel the same way when I read people with unbridled optimism like the fantasy of Romney repealing Obamacare at 12:01pm Jan 20, 2013. I want to slap them over the head and shout WAKE UP.

I’m actually a pretty happy go lucky kid. I just like to argue politics. And let’s face it, the world is a pretty depressing place these days and only getting worse, politics wise.

One of these days I’ll just put my head in the sand and join the rest of America into thinking all is well because American Idol is on.

You really do a great job here on HA, angryed. I agree with most everything you post, not because you post it per se, but because I’ve researched it. So I know when you post info about Romney’s record, it’s true. Many people don’t have the time to do the research.

Sorry, 46% isn’t even half and means that 54% didn’t vote for the presumptive landslider, so hardly a landslide. This is where the media loses me. Inaccurate assumptions. Sensationalist headlines. Exaggeration. What a buncha crud. And so disappointing.

stukinIL4now on February 1, 2012 at 12:13 AM

well, it is a landslide…Obama won 52& to 45% and they called it a landslide back then…